________________
71
2. Faulty script (handwriting). 3. Intermixture of Text and Commentary. 4. Conversion of Commentary into text.
1. The Difference in Tradition
Devarddhigaņi put the Agamas to writing a millennium after the nirvana of Mahāvīra. He compiled the variants that were extant at that time They are preserved in the Agamic commentaries even today!
At the time of the composition of Agastya-cūrņi the traditional variants were current. There in many places variants are mentioned. This is exactly the situation in the Cūrni of Jinadāsa. The readings approved in the Agamic commentary literature however are quite different. The author of the Dipikä сommentary goes still further. Even the slokas that are not explained in Commentary are explained by the author of the Dipikā, assuming them to be original sūtras.
The difference in the tradition is responsible for the difference between the authors of the Cūrm and Ţika regarding variants. But the difference of tradition does not appear to be responsible for the variants in the Dipika. That is due to the scribes. The writers of the manuscripts were very often the Jaina monks who also delivered sermons. The ślokas and gathās that were cited incidentally during the sermons were written in the margins of the manuscripts, and they were incorporated in the original. This has happened in the manuscripts of Daśavaikålika and Uttaradhyayana. The following sloka of the Daśavaikälika-niryukti has been written as a part of a original text
vayachakkam kāyachakkam akappo gihibhāyaṇam / paliyankapisejjā ya, siņāņam sohavajjaņar //
In a similar manner the Uttaradhyayana 24/12 is followed by a gåthå which is found incorporated in the manuscript
samkappo saírambho, paritāvakaro bhave samārambho 1 ārambho uddhavao, suddhanayāṇam tu savvesim /
The loss of memory has also contributed to this confusion. The monks who wrote manuscripts depending on memory could easily interchange syllables in the ślokas on account of faulty memory. The writers that followed repeated such mistakes that led to the stabilisation of the variants. 2. Faulty Script (Handwriting)
This was the most conspicuous reason for variant-readings. The script changed gradually, and consequently the subsequent scribes could not read the
1 Jinādāsa-cūrni, p. 204 :
nägajjunniya tu evam padhanti--'evam tu aguņappehi agunanam vivajjae'. 2 See Daśavaikälika, part II, 3/13; 5/1/7; 6/54 (commentary).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
